After back-to-back presidential losses, Republicans in key states want to change the rules to make it easier for them to win.

From Wisconsin to Pennsylvania, GOP officials who control legislatures in states that supported President Barack Obama are considering changing state laws that give the winner of a states popular vote all of its Electoral College votes, too. Instead, these officials want Electoral College votes to be divided proportionally, a move that could transform the way the country elects its president.

Republican National Committee Chairman Reince Priebus endorsed the idea this week, and other Republican leaders support it, too, suggesting that the effort may be gaining momentum. There are other signs that Republican state legislators, governors and veteran political strategists are seriously considering making the shift as the GOP looks to rebound from presidential candidate Mitt Romneys Electoral College shellacking and the demographic changes that threaten the partys long-term political prospects.

I want my state’s electoral votes given according to number of congressional districts won.

That way if Detroit wants to cheat and produce 10 trillion votes for Obozo, they can and it won’t make a bit of difference. They’ll still pick up only the allotted number of electoral votes for the district.

4
posted on 01/18/2013 8:20:20 AM PST
by cripplecreek
(REMEMBER THE RIVER RAISIN!)

All I know is that in the People’s Repubic of Maryland O’Mally and the Democrats voted not to proportion the electoral vote and they are certainly Democrats.

Of course with AP we know whose side they are on.
The writing in this article is so bad no one can understand it, but what I believe upsets the Democrats is that they want all electoral votes in Democrat States to go for them, but they want proportion in Mixed states that could go majority Republican.

Of course they want to blame this on Republicans.
They want to blame everything on Republicans.
One day they will wake up and blame Obama on Republicans.

Although naturally framed as a GOP ploy by AP, this makes sense and is based upon the idea of the Electoral College itself.

Why should cities like Madison, Chicago, Detroit, New York City and Philadelphia, et. al., have the luxury of carrying a disproportional weight and carrying an entire state to the exclusion of the entire rest of the state?

9
posted on 01/18/2013 8:23:42 AM PST
by Obadiah
(Of course Obama wants to protect our children. After all, who else is going to pay off his debt?)

“Although naturally framed as a GOP ploy by AP, this makes sense and is based upon the idea of the Electoral College itself.

Why should cities like Madison, Chicago, Detroit, New York City and Philadelphia, et. al., have the luxury of carrying a disproportional weight and carrying an entire state to the exclusion of the entire rest of the state?”

Thanks to the usurper Federal employees in black robes back in the 1960’s who abolished the States republican form of Government with their senate. Theses urban machines also control the state to the execution of the rights and liberties of everyone else.

Still going to a popular vote will allow theses same handful of corrupt urban machines to dominate Federal politics as well.

You have any idea the extent to which theses corrupt urban machine managed to squelch republican votes and inflate their own?

There is a dam good reason the popular vote is not the way we elect presidents. It is full of fraud!

* How about closed Primaries?* How about shunning the Lame-Stream-Media and doing your own events using our Talk Show Host as questioners and folks like Byron York, Mark Steyn, Huge Hewitt, Dennis Prager etc etc i.e. folks with a brain asking the questions?* How about proportional delegate wins with no funny games a-la Michigan, i.e. consistant rules from State to State?

I don’t think the city’s are zombies so much as electorally high-jacked by their local machines. I don’t believe that the urban vote is legitimately counted, nor do I believe it has been in many if not most city’s for most of the last 50 years.

This, plus fraud prevention (mainly voter ID), would go a long way towards defanging the Democrat machine. If EC votes were awarded on a district-by-district basis in the state of California, that could be enough to swing many presidential elections. Not all of California is full of moonbats.

I want my states electoral votes given according to number of congressional districts won.

That way if Detroit wants to cheat and produce 10 trillion votes for Obozo, they can and it wont make a bit of difference. Theyll still pick up only the allotted number of electoral votes for the district.

Exactly why the GOP needs to push this in every state possible. The whole point of the electoral college is to prevent urban enclaves outvoting and ruling over agricultural regions.

The Founders weren't stupid, they were seeking a balance that would avoid the city elite / peasant farmer dichotomy that civilization tends to devolve toward.

Its the way we’re “supposed” to do our GOP primaries in Michigan but they never expected a Romney/Santorum tie so they had to change the rules in the middle of the night. Its a bit more complicated but basically Romney took 3000 more total votes but they divided congressional districts evenly and were supposed to split the two remaining at large delegates but the GOP couldn’t afford for Romney to tie in Michigan.

There would be no late night rule change in the general election between the parties.

27
posted on 01/18/2013 8:51:40 AM PST
by cripplecreek
(REMEMBER THE RIVER RAISIN!)

“”I want my states electoral votes given according to number of congressional districts won.
That way if Detroit wants to cheat and produce 10 trillion votes for Obozo, they can and it wont make a bit of difference. Theyll still pick up only the allotted number of electoral votes for the district.”

Exactly why the GOP needs to push this in every state possible. The whole point of the electoral college is to prevent urban enclaves outvoting and ruling over agricultural regions.
“

I agree but do you really think bring it down to districting is a good idea? Suppose the corrupt democrats claim the State leglsators?

Presidential elections will go with the State leglsators, which on 2nd though might not be so bad.

I withdraw opposition, provided it follow the congressional district model.

It doesn’t make any difference who the candidates are as long as the left controls elections and is allowed voting “irregularities” as they see fit. The Supreme Court, earlier this week, left in place a ruling from 1982 that disallows Republicans from challenging ANY voter fraud on the part of democrats.

29
posted on 01/18/2013 8:55:06 AM PST
by freeangel
( (free speech is only good until someone else doesn't like it)

Although naturally framed as a GOP ploy by AP, this makes sense and is based upon the idea of the Electoral College itself.

The problem (and the reason it is able to be easily framed as a GOP ploy) is that the GOP is ONLY considering making this change in states that have trended Democratic in Presidential elections. No solid (or even marginal) red states are considering this. That makes this look like a transparently partisan move.

Yeah, that was the booby prize offered by our Quisling State GOP Chairman Rob Gleason after he blocked an electoral vote allocation by congressional district bill in 2011.

The ID bill passed and, of course, the Democrats had a hissy fit and sued. They found one fudgepacker judge to issue an injunction to suspend in just in time for the 2012 election.

Screw ém. The cheating party will scream no matter what. Nebraska has had congressional district voting since 1970 and Maine since 1990. Since BO picked up one Nebraska electoral vote in 2008, they have no grounds to challenge such a law.

Enact it. Enact voter ID as well. Let the DemonRATS play defense on multiple fronts. They have too much time to play offense now.

And, while they are at it, the GOP should put some teeth in encouraging this type of thing to spread by allocating GOP delegates more on the basis of rewarding states which actually deliver electoral votes to the GOP ticket in November, including those who do it by congressional district voting. It makes no damn sense to give a state like California, who will never deliver GOP electoral votes in November, more primary delegates than Texas, which reliably does.

32
posted on 01/18/2013 9:02:04 AM PST
by Vigilanteman
(Obama: Fake black man. Fake Messiah. Fake American. How many fakes can you fit in one Zer0?)

I want my states electoral votes given according to number of congressional districts won. That way if Detroit wants to cheat and produce 10 trillion votes for Obozo, they can and it wont make a bit of difference. Theyll still pick up only the allotted number of electoral votes for the district.

Well said. Hopefully the GOP will get that premise out there in the public, that voter fraud won't be such a threat if big cities can't sway the entire state, that liberal strongholds in cities won't rule the country.

Since we were formed as the United STATES and not the United Electoral Votes or United Congressional Districts do you think that the Founders were seeking a balance more at the individual state level rather than what you mention (the city elite vs. peasant farmer)?

This crap is exactly why I have always been so vehemently opposed to the 17th anti constitutional amendment.

It was popular vote snake oil sold under the banner of empowerment and all it did was strip power from the states. Here in Michigan the GOP holds a huge majority across all 3 branches of state government but Detroit, Flint, and Ann Arbor elect Levin and Stabenow over and over again.

Prior to the 17th a senator who attempted to override the desires of the state could be removed by the legislature. Today the state wants one thing but “our” senators do exactly the opposite.

Its also important to note that the GOP holds all 3 branches in 24 states. The democrats hold all 3 in 13 states. The senate should resemble the nation but it doesn’t.

35
posted on 01/18/2013 9:06:20 AM PST
by cripplecreek
(REMEMBER THE RIVER RAISIN!)

Anyone remember when democraps proposed this during the 2000s when Bush and Republicans were winning elections? It was “good idea” back then, but now that it has turned around, its a Republican play. The media in this country sucks.

>> The map below shows the counties won by Obama in blue and the ones won by Romney in red. Were all ruled by the cities. <<

Bingo. The freepers claiming it's a north vs. south battle in this country with "liberal yankeeland" have it wrong. States like Indiana certainly aren't "liberal". Rather, it's an urban vs. rural battle for the culture of this country.

If you live in El Paso, Chicago, New York, Los Angeles, Memphis, Detroit, Miami, Atlanta, Philadelphia, Denver, Las Vegas, St. Louis, Charlotte, Cleveland, Milwaukee, etc., the local government and electorate is overwhelmingly Democrat and liberal.

Disclaimer:
Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual
posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its
management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the
exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.